Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • Furthermore it is important to point out that

    2018-10-23

    Furthermore, it Go 6976 is important to point out that, in model 4 the elasticity for unlisted and non-large firms, evaluated at sample mean, is 0.66, i.e., the impact of 1.0% in cash flow implies an increase of 0.66% in investment, similar to the elasticity of small firms groups in regressions of Table 2. Moreover, the coefficient of value added growth for non-large and unlisted firms is positive and significant. Nevertheless, opportunity investment information does not affect the significance of cash flow on firms’ investment. Part B of Table 5 reports the outcomes related to the models where variables are classified by firms’ size and by the firms’ degree of exports to sales ratio, together. One should note that, as shown in Table 3, both non-exporters as well as low-export firms are credit constrained and coefficients associated to them are statistically equal across the two groups. In this sense, we reclassify them into the following groups: no high group referring to firms with exports-to-sales ratio which falls below the 50th percentile of the exports-to-sales ratio distribution and high group indicates the opposite. Considering the same export group, with the exception of model 2, firms’ size does not influence the impact of cash flow on investment, especially when dummy interactions are extended to the control variables. Similarly to the general results of Table 3, the cash flow coefficient is null for large exporters. Focusing on firms with significant cash flow impact, i.e., the non-high exporters group (firms with zero or low export to ratio sales), there is not strong evidence that the coefficients across these two groups are different. In this sense, interacting export groups to the firms’ size do not affect the main results reported in Table 3. It suggests that export status proposed here does not capture size effect. Otherwise, as discussed, this classification may be associated to our perspective, i.e. the degree of firms’ external financial constraint.
    Conclusion In this paper, we evaluate whether Brazilian manufacturing firms are credit constrained and which conditions prevail for the existence of credit restrictions. Our results back up previous important studies like Fazzari et al. (1988) as well as corroborate Brazilian studies, which also attest that firms are credit constrained (Terra, 2003 and Aldrighi and Bisinha, 2010). Regarding results on firms’ size, our findings are compatible with international literature (Guariglia, 2008), where credit constraints are softened or inexistent considering large firms. Otherwise, we also found that listed firms on the stock market are not credit constrained. Furthermore, the results also evidence that firms more devoted to exports, measured as the exports-to-sales ratio, are not credit constrained, whereas firms that do not export or have a low level of exports are credit constrained.
    Introduction By the mid-1960s, Kaldor became increasingly interested in domestic and international economic policy, partly as a result of being a Special Adviser of the British Chancellor of Exchequer from 1964, and also as a resident of Great Britain, a country with the slowest postwar growth rate among major industrialized countries in Europe. He focused in particular on the search for empirical regularities related to inter-country and inter-regional growth rate comparisons. In this vein, plasmodesmata produced a number of articles (see, for example, Kaldor, 1970, 1971, 1976) primarily concerned with fundamental policy issues linked to socioeconomic management such as finance, monetary and fiscal requirements for sustainable growth, distribution and stability. One of his most stimulating, albeit not too well known, essays on macroeconomic policy is “Conflicts in National Economic Objectives”, originally delivered as Presidential Address to Section F of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Durham, Scotland, September 1970) and printed by the Economic Journal in 1971. There, he deals with a comprehensive analysis of the performance of the British economy after the World War II. The main purpose of his article was to present a logical and empirical reconsideration of a basic macroeconomic framework of necessary relations to achieve some desirable targets, or economic policy objectives. It is our view that Kaldor’s essay goes well beyond the scope of his country. Actually, he produced an explicit and successful attempt to extend the General Theory of Keynes (1936) to an open economy in which the government’s economic policy constitutes a fairly unambiguous component of the power dynamics (decision making) within a mixed economy.